Amph Django Unchained

It's personal taste I admit. Seeing Django portrayed as a man willing to sink to any depth to be reunited with his wife made me lose interest in him.

 

I had the exact same issue with the movie.

After

Spoiler

King's death and the gun fight

, the film did slow down a bit and dragged on. I liked Foxx and Jackson's scene in that barn, which included some good acting by Jackson, but Quentin could've summed up the ending/tightened it up a bit.

I still like Basterds and Pulp Fiction better, sadly.

 

me too. though i've seen plup fictions too many times to really enjoy it anymore. i think my favorite tarantino is still jackie brown.

 

I think you're drawing a distinction here that doesn't exist, though. Django and Schultz are partners; Schultz isn't just an unrelated third party. If Schultz acts out of character, here behind enemy lines, it impacts Django. It impacts his life. It impacts his ability to free his wife. If Candie smells something wrong with them, they could get killed. They could be refused the opportunity to free Broomhilda. He undercuts Schultz's offer because it is likely to get them in trouble, and there's no guarantee it would even work. Candie might prefer to get his money's worth out of the dogs. It's unlikely that they can both save this guy and save Broomhilda. Django doesn't want to run that risk. Schultz has drilled into him the importance of staying in character. Now he sees Schultz breaking character, so he pulls Schultz back. How is that different from the "opportunity to intervene but doesn't wish to blow his cover" scenario you've outlined? Django and Schultz are a team. They have an opportunity to intervene, but don't want to blow their cover. One of them almost blows their cover, and the other, the one with more at stake if their cover is blown, stops him from doing so. Does the presence of some small level of activity, rather than pure passivity, in his refusal to blow his cover, really create a wholly new moral calculus? I really don't think so. "If they'd just not helped, that would be one thing, but affirmatively saying they weren't going to help, whoah! Movie-ruining immorality!" It seems a weird hair to split.

 

i just saw this movie and thought it was great.

 

Jabbadabbado, skip to around 6 minutes in to see Jamie Foxx's take on that scene. If you're still interested in this at all.

 

I don't think Django was ever intended to be a heroic character. He saw himself as a black ubermensch. He did say he is one in 10000. Even Candy saw him as a black ubermensch, he only lost respect for him when he realised he was coming for his girl. He revealed his weakness, thats why Candy called him an unimpressive n####. The only person other than his wife Dajngo seemed to respect was Schultz. i almost expected him to kill the the slaves on the cart at the end. He had no problem killing women...

 

What's wrong with having no problem killing women? Miss Candie was complicit in the horrors that M. Candie was enacting upon his slaves. She also was the one who suggested that they castrate Django. Why did she not deserve to be punished for her behavior and endorsement of behaviors like her brother?

Having a uterus doesn't make your life magically anymore valuable.

 

Also, I can't think of a single reason he would kill the slaves on the cart. What would the logic there be?

 

Honestly, I don't really see much of a connection between what Foxx describes as his process (how he worked through the scene as an actor) and how the scene is written and what ends up on screen. Artistic intent is largely irrelevant to how moviegoers experience a scene. In other words, what you see is what you get. Sometimes knowing what the artist was up to makes it worse, since it often becomes clear that they executed their "intent" poorly or ineffectively or just wrong.

I think the movie gets less and less interesting if the artist is insisting on portraying a protagonist who is nothing more than a degraded, violent, dehumanized product of a terrible environment. That's the point? Awful point, and boring to boot.

 

I really enjoyed it. Christoph Waltz was fantastic. I'm happy to report that the movie did not feel like 2 hours and 45 minutes.

 

ebay forbids sale of discontinued Django Unchained action figures

Even though you can buy authentic slave shackles and old racist figurines on there. Just saying......

 

*sigh* The ultra-PC crowd get's it all wrong yet again.

 

This is actually one of my top three favorite films of the 2010s. However, I have to admit that Stephen using the word mother****er is unrealistic. I don't think that word was invented yet. Also, I'm not sure if people would use terms like "Planet Earth," as Candie did. But they might have. Even so, Christoph Waltz' Dr. King Schultz is one of my favorite film characters of all time. I like how Django basically defeats everyone but the house slaves at the end of the movie.

On a more humorous note, back in 2014, this movie was fresh on my mind, since I didn't see it until April 2013. And I was talking with my former roommate about how Dominos Pizza did not have good pizzas, but they said that Dominos did have some great deserts.

"That's good to know."
- Djano, shooting Tarantino and the Australians

"That's good to know."
- me, as I shoot the Dominos managers

Needless to say, I did not do any such thing. I don't own guns and never will. It was just funny.

 

Can Tarantino please make Kill Bill 3 before he does retire , go godfather 2 with part 3 , have young Bill played by Austin Butler hes gonna be huge now with the Elvis movie hes done , he would be perfect as Bill, cast young actors to play Hanzo, Pai Mei, Budd etc.

 

Hasn't he said he'd only do it with Vernita's daughter growing up and going after Beatrix?

 

Weren't they making a Django meets zorro movie?

 

Yeah it would be flashbacks ala Godfather part 2 with young BIll and the rest, then you go to the present with Vernita's daughter going after Beatrix and Bibi.

 

Nah ive been wanting a godfather 2 type Kill Bill 3 for long time , had Carradine been alive still maybe they wouldve cgid him to look younger for flashbacks but having a younger actor play him is what theyll have to do now .

 

The first verified use of MF dates back to 1889 Texas, when during a murder trial, a witness used the word while giving testimony. Eight years later, transcript from a court opinion used the word. So the movie's use is somewhat accurate. Check Wikipedia, as I cannot link it for obvious reasons.

 

Interesting. I did not know that.